The Moderate Manifesto

Originally published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2004-11-18.  You can find many articles on “Moderate Manifesto” published since then by many authors since.

A spectre is haunting America – the spectre of divisiveness.  All the powers of old grudges have entered into an unholy alignment to excite this spectre: freethinker and evangelical, Moore and Limbaugh, urban radicals and exurban commuters.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as divisive by its opponents in power? 

Where is the Opposition that has not hurled the branding reproach of divisiveness against more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:

1. Moderation is sadly needed by all American powers to become itself a power.

2. It is high time that Moderates should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of divisiveness with a manifesto of moderation itself.

To this end, a Party of One assembled in Duluth and sketched the following manifesto, to be published, sadly, in only one newspaper and in only the English language.

A moderate party would be based on four principles:

1. Strive for a balance between individual liberty and public good.

2. Discuss issues openly and respectfully.

3. Provide and pay for government services at the appropriate level.

4. Use party policies as guidelines.  Individual officeholders are free to make independent decisions based on the first three principles.

We need a balance between individual liberty and public good because too much liberty for some leads to harm to others and too much public good leads to loss of liberty for all.  On the other hand, too little liberty leads to a lack of creativity and too little public good leads to a lack of infrastructure to support creativity and the movement of people, goods, and ideas.

We need open and respectful discussion of issues to allow voice for a wide range of ideas.  Hardened opinions lead only to more hardened opinions.  “Our side is right and your side is wrong.”  Ideas lead to more ideas.  Rather than debates to win voters to one candidate or another, we need conversations to define what the real problems are and what possible solutions are available.

We need to provide for government services at the appropriate levels as well as levy the taxes at those levels that provide the services.  We avoid taxes at lower levels of government and demand more services from higher levels of government.  This has several pernicious effects.  As we avoid taxes at lower levels, local governments have few resources to provide the services local communities want. 

The demand for the local services does not go away but is pushed up to higher government levels. 

Higher government levels need to raise taxes to pay for those services.  Provision of services from outside the local community leads to services out of proportion to local needs resulting in poor delivery, excessive requirements, or unused services and equipment.  As taxes at higher levels go up, the ability to tax at lower levels goes down.  Inevitably, taxes at higher levels reach a point where voters rebel, the services provided at the higher level are cut, and the lower levels are unable to make up for those cuts.

We need politicians who follow a broad set of guidelines rather than a detailed list of party policies. 

When parties have detailed policies we move toward groupthink rather than individual liberty, and groupthink is not good for the common good.  The United States Senate is often called “the greatest deliberative body in the world.”  This may be true in some committee hearings, but hardened opinions has led to more posturing and less deliberating in the general sessions.  Hardened opinions are being demonstrated in state legislatures and city councils as well.

What are some policy examples that might follow from these principles?

One of the most divisive issues is abortion.  One side wants no abortions anytime anywhere; the opposite side wants no government interference in abortions anytime anywhere.  The only way to have no abortions is to keep all fertile females away from all fertile males.  That would move far away from the first principle of individual liberty.  Even if mixing of the sexes were permitted for married couples what happens when a pregnancy goes seriously awry?  Do we sacrifice both the mother and the fetus to a principle of no abortions?  The basic problem is unwanted pregnancies.  To reduce abortions we need to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The proven ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies are to reduce abusive family situations, poverty, and ignorance.  The real discussion should be how to implement policies to reduce these problems.

The right charges that the left is weak on defense and the left charges that the right is militaristic.  But what is defense?  Is it military might that is suitable against mass armies?  Or is it international co-operation to resolve disputes?  Is it high-tech weaponry that can take out selected targets?  Or is it international police co-operation to root out terrorist cells before they can strike?

Freedom and democracy are words brandished like swords by those who claim them as their own goals.  Is freedom only granted to those who agree with a government?  Or is it the freedom to express unpopular opinions?  Is democracy only granted to those who vote for a dominant party and begrudgingly given to a large-scale opposition?  Or is democracy an open society in which people feel free to exercise their right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”?

In summary, the Moderate Party should be the party that asks the hard questions.  And by asking the right questions, might lead a consensus that will lead to a better country and to a better world.

Oso, Washington mudslide: sometimes I don’t like to be proven right

I have been wondering if the disastrous mudslide in Oso, Washington was caused by excessive logging.  Could it have been only that there was far more rain than normal?  My concern was affirmed by Timothy Egan, “A Mudslide, Foretold”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/egan-at-home-when-the-earth-moves.html”, New York Times, 2014-03-29.

Twenty-five years ago, in the same valley, he witnessed a mudslide from over-logging.  The hill above Oso had possibly been logged beyond the legal limit.

I just can’t write anything more at the moment about this predictable catastrophe.  I’ve written before about short-term profit and few are taking up Pete Seeger’s chorus, “When will they ever learn?”.

If corporations are people, tax them like people

When I lived in Europe, as a U.S. citizen I had to file and pay U.S. income taxes.  I received credit for any foreign taxes I paid.  If I paid more foreign taxes than I would have paid for the same salary in the U.S., Univac reimbursed me for the difference.  Of course, that reimbursement was also taxable in the U.S.

I think this still holds.

However, a U.S. company doesn't pay any taxes on its foreign earnings unless it brings the money back to the U.S.

If a corporation is a person, then it should pay taxes like a person.  If a corporation is not a person, then it should not be able to indulge in "political speech".

But if this leads to justification for not paying taxes, then consider that the corporation uses a lot of infra-structure paid for by taxes.  Should not a corporation pay for the roads that it depends on for moving goods and people?  Should not a corporation pay for the court system that it uses to sue others: corporations and people?  Should not a corporation pay for the military that protects its interests around the world?

Is this effort to avoid corporate taxes another instance of the deception and oppression of the public that Adam Smith warned about?  See "The Invisible Adam Smith".

Private vs. Public, No Clear Answer

Many people are calling for the privatization of almost everything: schools, utilities, prisons, armies, and more.  They claim that a private corporation will be more efficient than a government operated entity.  The skeptic should ask what is meant by efficiency and what other values would be lost with privatization.

For example, if a private company operates a prison will a lower cost per prisoner come with a lower cost for security?

If a private company operates something, will it be calling for less regulation, regulations that could be protecting public safety and public health.  For example, BP was state-operated for a long time, and then Margaret Thatcher privatized it.  Apparently the deadly accident rate has gone way up because costs were cut to keep profits way up.

If private schools take away selected students from public schools, will the students left have fewer role models for success?  Many "failing" schools do graduate successful students.

Regardless of the form of an organization, three ingredients are needed for success: clear goals, management that understands those goals, and sufficient resources to meet those goals.

For more, see "When Public Outperforms Private in Services", Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 2013-01-15.  See also the book that he mentions, "The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office" by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan.

The true names of the Republicans and the Democrats

I've often thought that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats live up to the names of their parties.  The Republicans are more in favor of res privata than res publica and the Democrats may often make noises of being the party of the people (demōs) but often bow to corporate interests.

I've often thought of the Republicans as the Republicants or the Republiwonts because they are often such nay-sayers to anything the Democrats may propose.  Then a few years ago I noticed the all the Republicans seemed to be all in lockstep on a laundry list of issues.  They must be anti-abortion, pro-war, lower and lower taxes, climate change deniers, America firsters, anti environment protection, anti safety rules, anti-labor unions, and pro-pro-pro business.  They all must bash the public schools and their "greedy teacher unions".  They all must decry run-away spending without being specific about what really should be cut, except for the military that they think needs more money without limit.  They all must decry deficits without considering that running a deficit may be because of investments that will pay off in the future.  They must decry subsidies for alternate energy but must demand subsidies for sports stadiums.

Then I heard about ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council run by the Koch brothers and others.  Ah, so, the Republicans are not a bunch of politicians with similar ideas who may disagree on some points.  They have almost all become beholden to ALEC and its ideology.  They have become puppets of and parrots for a small plutocracy.  So, their true party name is Repuppetans or Reparrotans.  We could also call them Reprivateers, because they put the private interests of a few far over public interests.

The Democrats at least make some effort to put public interests above private interests.  Of course, it's hard to do so when the private interests provide so much larger campaign contributions than the general public does.  They also lack the energy of a Teddy Roosevelt, a Franklin Roosevelt or a Harry Truman who were willing to face down large corporate interests in favor of the public interest.  I wonder if modern Democrats should be called Democravens or Democave-ins.  From reports I've had of the October 2, 2012 debates, these could be very apt names.

Grover Norquist calls 911

Grover Norquist is frying a couple of hamburger patties in his kitchen when some grease spatters and is ignited.  He rushes to his phone to call for assistance.

Scenario One

Grover Norquist calls 911.  He receives a recorded message:

If you require government assistance, please look in Grover Norquist's bathtub.

Scenario Two

Grover Norquist calls his private fire company.  He is given the following list of instructions:

If you are calling about a cat in a tree, please press 1.

If you are calling about smelling gas, please press 2.

If you are calling about a medical emergency, please press 3.

If you are calling about a fire, please press 4. (Grover Norquist presses 4.)

If you are calling about a car fire, please press 1.

If you are calling about a brush fire, please press 2.

If you are calling about a chimney fire, please press 3.

If you are calling about a kitchen fire, please press 4.  (Grover Norquist presses 4.)

He hears the following message:

All our agents are busy.  Please stay online for our next available agent.

After a minute, Grover Norquist hears the following message:

All our agents are still busy.  Please stay online for our next available agent.  Your approximate wait time is five minutes. (This is repeated every minute.)

Finally after ten minutes, he hears in an Indian accent:

"Good evening, my name is Stephanie.  It is my pleasure to assist you this evening.  May I have your name and address?"

Grover Norquist gives his name and address.

"I am sorry, sir, but we have no record of a client named Rover Northlist."

Grover Norquist spells out his name.

"I apologize for getting your name wrong, sir.  My computer is searching for your account."

After a minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but we are having a typhoon and our connection to the Internet is slow."

After another minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but our records indicate that you have not paid your last two premiums.  We are not permitted to dispatch a crew when a client is in arrears."

Scenario Three

As in Scenario two, but Grover Norquist has paid all his premiums.  After the agent finds his account, she says,  "I'm sorry, sir, but our crew for your town is now at an apartment fire and it appears that they will be there all night.  Would you like me to check with our backup crew?  They are only twenty miles away."

Why do people pick on the Post Office?

For some time it has seemed the fashion to claim the United States Post Office is a bad example of government services, that it is run by the greedy mail carriers' union, and that it should pay its own way.

From my experience, the United States Post Office has been run effectively, provided friendly and courteous service, and provided an essential public good.

I have often found that mail deposited one day is often delivered the next day within the state and often delivered within three days within the lower 48.  It almost always arrives in the same condition as it was deposited.

A case in point is the delivery of DVDs from Netflix.  I put a DVD in a box on Sunday, next scheduled pickup was 12:30 on Monday, at 2:00 a.m. on Tuesday Netflix sent me email that it had received my DVD, and on Wednesday around 10:00 a.m. I had my next selection.

Granted the return address for Netflix is Duluth.  But what would happen if the processing center was closed in Duluth and all local mail had to first make a 300-mile round-trip to the Twin Cities?

If the Post Office is so inefficient, why does UPS use USPS for the last-mile delivery of small packages?  Several times I've gotten small orders delivered by our mail carrier, but the shipper had originally given the order to UPS.  This hand-off happens because it is inefficient for UPS to deliver such small packages door-to-door.

Some have complained about surly counter service at the Post Office.  My general experience is that counter personnel treat every customer as the only customer.  They give alternative shipping costs and conditions and always ask "Anything else?"

The Postal Service seems to be the only government agency that Congress expects to pay its own way.  Is Congress going to insist that every Interstate highway be a toll road?  Is Congress going to insist that every homeowner whose house has been saved by U.S. Forest Service firefighters pay a fee?

The U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power … to establish Post Offices and post Roads."  The Constitution mentions nothing about how post offices and post roads should be paid for.  In fact, in recognition that newspapers were important for an informed populace, an early Congress determined that newspapers should be sent at a lower rate than letters.

The benefits and the costs of the Postal Service should not be examined as a direct cost/benefit problem but as a system cost/benefit problem.  It is not a question if the revenue of the Postal Services is meeting its costs, but it is a question of what benefits would not be realized if postal service were cut back.  For example, if all Duluth mail had to go to the Twin Cities to be processed, would the Netflix office in Duluth close, putting some local people out of work?

Alarmist liberals and alarming conservatives

So-called liberals often cry wolf or throw statistics around with scant analysis, all to support their perception of people in need of the "liberals'" political assistance.

So-called conservatives often are willing to throw facts out the window, to stage events, and to edit liberally(?) to put organizations that they don't like in a bad light.  See "At Advocates' Offices, Confronting an Anti-Liberal Scheme", Michael Power, New York Times, 2012-04-02.

Whatever happened to the "virtue" written about so liberally in the Federalist Papers?  Whatever happened to promoting the public good rather than private interest?  Whatever happened to reasoned argument based on fact and acceptance of different views?  Our political system has been debased to a war where the other side is always, absolutely wrong.  At least this war is being fought with words rather than swords and with bucks rather than bombs.  If you look around the world, we probably should be thankful for this little "boon".

Where, oh where did the moderates go?

For a good analysis of why we have so few moderate Republicans, see "George and Mitt Romney & the Death of Moderate GOP", David Frum, The Daily Beast, 2012-03-19.

As an interesting sidelight, how many current Republicans (or Democrats) would take a subway from the airport and a bus from the subway as George Romney did to visit his son's campaign headquarters?

The once and probably not future Republicans

The Coffee Party posted the following on Facebook:

"We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth." - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States of America

I added the comment, "Give me that old-time Republican!!"

I might add that "public good" is used 25 times in the Federalist Papers, many times more than "profit" or "corporation", both of which have multiple meanings.

Facts, figures, and finagling

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8), in his "Week in Review & Look Ahead" for January 13, quotes the National Association of Manufacturers that the Keystone XL pipeline project is "estimated to create 20,000 high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs".

So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.

Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.

First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.

Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.

There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.

The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).

Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.

How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.

What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:

"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison

Quote of the day – Moderation in politics

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 1

When did we go wrong?

"THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.  Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation", New York Packet, 1788-02-19

"Public good" or "common good" appear 26 times in the Federalist Papers.  "Business" appears 26 times but almost always in the context of the business of government.  "Corporation" appears seven times, but only twice in the sense of business.  One is that the King of England has authority to establish corporations but the President of the United States does not.  The other is how laws have not become perfect, including the law of corporations.

Now we have for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the private good of corporations.

So much for following the intent of the "Founding Fathers".

Power plays

We have the Republicans in Congress voting in lockstep to oppose Obama and the Democrats.  Well, almost, now we have "Tea Party" Republicans voting in lockstep to defeat spending proposals of veteran Republican legislators.

We have Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate disappearing to deprive the Republicans of a quorum to pass an anti-public union bill.

We have thousands packing the Wisconsin capitol to protest the bill.

I have a couple of questions.

How many of the protestors voted in the last election?  If the turnout of these voters was the same as the general population, they partly have themselves to blame.  If they all turned out, maybe they should work harder at getting a bigger turnout in the next election.

Why the big push to strip unions of power?  Could it be part of a larger corporate strategy to weaken those who question corporate power?

It seems that many corporate executives want everything their own way; governments and unions shouldn't even question their decisions.  It seems that their only goal is to maximize their own compensation, to hell with the shareholders, to hell with the environment, to hell with the public good.

Not all corporate executives behave this way, but enough do and are pushing us down a slippery slope to a very uncivil society, one which really won't be good for business in the long term.  It's another version of Lenin's "A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with."

Responses to "Give Governance a Chance"

So far there have only been two posted responses to my "Local View" submission, "Give Governance a Chance".  One simply was "Well stated."  The other was a long paragraph about living at the end of a mile-long private road and not worrying about getting cholera.  The Like or Dislikes were 10-2 and 2-11, respectively.

I haven't been around town since it was published, but four acquaintances told me that they liked it, as well as my two adult children (of course).

"Give Conservatives a Chance" has over thirty comments, including replies and replies to replies.  I didn't bother reading most of them, being "same old, same old" regardless of the "side" taken.

Give Governance a Chance

This is the title of a "Local View" article I wrote for the Duluth News Tribune.  You can find it at

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/188796/

It was my response to "Give Conservatism a Chance" published earlier in the week.  It is at

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/188404/

Be forewarned: The Duluth News Tribune makes articles available for free for only a week; after that you have to pay.

Privileged pricing gets more public service?

One of the hot ideas for reducing congestion is to have congestion pricing for special lanes of highways. If you are willing to pay you can have access to supposedly less congested lanes. In other words, better public service is available to those willing to pay for it.

What's next? Those who are willing to pay get faster police and fire response. Your garage fire gets better response than someone's house fire? Your breakin while you were on vacation gets better response than someone being threatened by an intruder?

Taxes and the common good; lack of linking the two is too common

"...just when you thought it was safe to spend your own money again..."
- Andy Aplikowski, residualforces.com, quoted by Tim O'Brien, The Blog House, Star Tribune, 2008-02-28

How do you spend your own money for roads, police and fire, defense, and education?

Today's ideological conservatives just don't understand the need for a balance between individual choices and the public good.

My wife added, "They inherited the public good without any notion of how it got there."

And I added, "How can we earn our money without the investment in the public good by people in the past?" Or, as the bumper sticker says, "If you can read this, thank a teacher."

See also